The meeting of the Academic Budget & Planning Committee was called to order by Chair Glantz on May 15, 2001 at about 2:30 p.m. in Room S318. A quorum was present.

MINUTES

The March 20 and 29, and April 19, 2001 minutes were approved.

OLD BUSINESS

Tobacco Center ProposalThe Committee’s review of this proposal is finished and copies of the final report were circulated to the whole Committee and forwarded to Senate Chair L. Pitts.

Restructure ProposalThe proposal will be submitted to the Chancellor’s Executive Budget Committee next week with a request for the EBC’s endorsement. Chair Glantz will ask Senate Chair L. Pitts to discuss with the Deans any questions they might have about the proposal.Chair Glantz attended the April Clinical Affairs Committee meeting to discuss the restructure proposal and how best to work with Clinical Affairs on the issues that concern both committees, particularly Medical Center issues. No decisions were made at the CAC meeting, but a likely scenario is that CAC will designate a liaison to APB. L. Zegans and J. Showstack will be meeting with W. Gold, Chair of CAC, and M. Laret, CEO of the Medical Center, to discuss how best to integrate the Medical Center into the APB Committee’s restructure and into APB’s increased involvement in long-range planning and budget issues.

Bylaw Revision/Additional Committee Members
The Committee discussed how to integrate Faculty Council representatives into APB as members. Pursuant to the division bylaws, COC must appoint any members of APB (unless a person becomes a member by virtue of their title, i.e., ex officio). This means that COC could decide to appoint someone other than whom the Faculty Councils have designated. For this year, the Committee will ask COC to appoint those persons that the Faculty Councils designate as their representatives. The Committee may in the future request the Faculty Councils to create in their bylaws a formal APB liaison position, and APB would in turn state in its bylaws that these representatives are APB members ex officio.
Because the Committee hopes for expansion of its membership to be approved, the Committee discussed possible names to fill in the extra membership slots that will open up as a result of the expansion. The Committee will not take any official action regarding additional members unless and until the bylaw revision has been approved.

PROPOSED CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY CHANGES

Per a request by Senate Chair L. Pitts, the Committee discussed proposed conflict of interest policy changes. The Committee believes these changes make the policy less restrictive, rather than more restrictive and is concerned about the appearance of impropriety. The Committee felt that allowing investigators to receive any personal funds while involved in a clinical trial from the sponsor of a clinical trial was a severe weakening of the conflict of interest standards and could be a problem for UCSF publicly. The Committee discussed the following as an alternative suggestion (Paragraphs 11 and 12 are the new, revised paragraphs as provided to the Committee, and Committee edits are redlined):

PROPOSED UCSF GUIDELINE MODIFICATIONS:

11. Faculty, or his or her spouse or dependent children, who own direct investments, including stock and stock options, whose value may be substantially influenced by the outcome of a clinical study will not be allowed to serve as an investigator in that study or to participate in writing or presenting the results of the study. In addition, they shall not serve in a decision making capacity for (such as service on the Board of Directors or management committee), or be an officer or employee of the company sponsoring the study.

12. Faculty who serve as principal or co-investigator on clinical research involving a device or drug shall report income from consulting or honoraria or other personal payments received during the course of the study. Income from any company sponsor of clinical research on which a faculty member acts as principal or co-investigator shall not exceed $10,000 per year.*

*Calculation of payments excludes reasonable paymentsreimbursements for expenses related to the consultation or presentation.

The Committee means by use of the term ‘direct’ to exclude ownership of mutual funds that in turn own stock whose value may be influenced by the study. The Committee reasoned that the change in the value of one stock in a fund generally does not significantly affect the value of the fund unit price such that an appearance of impropriety would result.

In addition, the Committee discussed that such changes need to be reviewed by a knowledgeable person or persons to determine whether other rules and regulations, such as insider trading laws, impact any attempts to change the current policy. The Committee also discussed whether these changes are ambiguous in light of the compensation plan requirements.

The Committee will discuss this issue further and provide its comments to Chair Pitts by his requested deadline of June 9, 2001.

NEW BUSINESS

State Budget/S. BarclayS. Barclay reported on the Governor’s recently released budget revisions. UC’s proposed budget has been cut by approximately $200 million with a $100 million offset for energy purchases. The capital budget remained largely intact while the operating budget carried the weight of the cut. One component of the operating budget that was reduced is the percentage increase in faculty and staff salaries. UCSF also lost the increase in its maintenance budget, lost some library funds and lost some instructional technology funds. S. Barclay noted that the Senate and Assembly still need to work on the budget and that UCSF should have some better sense in June of whether the numbers will change.
To review the full budget, visit: http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/BUD_DOCS/Bud_link.htm.

Indirect Costs/S. Barclay
UCSF is working with UCOP to ascertain what process of calculations will be used to determine the portion of indirect costs returned to campus as 19900 general fund money.

Mission Bay Implementation Committee/D. BikleD. Bikle reported that this particular Mission Bay committee is only voting ‘yes’, ‘no’, or ‘needs further discussion’ regarding lists of faculty names suggested for relocation to Mission Bay. If this is the only Mission Bay committee with which the Senate is involved, then the Senate is not playing a significant or sufficient role in the decisions regarding Mission Bay.

Long Range Development Plan Amendment Committee/D. Bikle
D. Bikle reported that this committee will be working on amending the campus 15-year plan to include plans for the replacement/relocation of the Moffitt-Long and will be considering the potential impacts on the academic program. Bruce Spaulding and Craig VanDyke co-chair this committee. D. Bikle has advocated that Senate members be placed on the subcommittees that are generated out of this committee. D. Bikle reported a good sense of Senate involvement through this committee on the hospital replacement/relocation issue.

Proposed 5th School
The Committee discussed the problem that no Faculty have yet seen the proposal that has already been distributed to certain systemwide committees. The Committee would like to invite Vice Chancellor Bainton to its next meeting to discuss the 5th School proposal and the process associated with it.